As some NFL fans know, the possibility is growing that there will not be a NFL season in 2011. The reason of course is that there is currently no agreed-upon Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the players, and while they're going to play this season, if the two sides don't come to an agreement, then there will be no season in 2011.

The sticking point, as always, is money. The owners will talk about the greedy players who want too much money and how the current percentage of league-wide revenue going to the players is unsustainable. The players will ask, as they already have, for the owners to open up the books and prove that there are actual, existing, financial problems. The owners will, of course, refuse, and offer to let the players look at highly-suspect, audited revenue numbers that would make Enron's accounting look honest. (The Green Bay Packers, being a publicly-owned team, are the exception to the no-opening-of-the-books rule)

But as much as this will be a PR battle between the owners and the players, the real battle is going to be between the owners.

Specifically, it's going to be a battle between owners like Jerry Jones and Bob McNair against teams like those in Green Bay and Jacksonville. The owners like Jones and McNair want to decrease the amount of revenue sharing between teams, and those teams that are in the small markets want to do everything possible to make sure they continue to financially compete against the big boys.

Being that this is Houston, don't expect to hear too much on the owner versus owner aspect of this story. Especially where the Houston Chronicle and NFL expert John McClain are involved, since the criticism of Bob McNair appears to be forbidden. But McNair is one of the leading forces in the league revenue-sharing battle, and it's his role in this battle that is the primary reason that Houston, despite some superior bids, has been unable to get another Super Bowl.

The owners of the small-market teams, you see, can find no reason to award McNair with this prime money-making event since he's trying to cheat them out of money. So don't expect to see another Super Bowl in Houston for awhile, especially if McNair gets his way and the revenue-sharing plan is changed. (Arlington is getting the game because the NFL promised one if a new stadium was built for the Cowboys. But it's doubtful the Cowboys will be able to pull off getting another one unless Jerry Jones does something about his attitude.)

And as this battle plays out, expect the McNairs, Joneses, et al to forget one of the prime lessons learned by the likes of Pete Rozelle and Lamar Hunt back in the 1960s. The key to the growth of professional football, and what harmed Major League Baseball, was that Rozelle and Hunt realized that without equal revenue sharing - including equal sharing of all network TV and merchandising revenue - the small-market teams would never be able to keep up with the big market teams.

But with the likes of the Packers able to get the same revenue as the Giants and the Cowboys, they were able to stay competitive. And competitive balance meant that all fans in all cities knew that their teams had a chance of making the playoffs most years - nothing could help bad drafts, poor coaching, etc., however - so that kept TV viewership high, and high TV viewership meant that the NFL was able to get more and more money from the networks, and more and more money from the networks meant more and more money for the teams, which meant that teams could spend more on players which meant that the teams could keep competing on an even playing field financially which each other.

So while the story will be about the players and owners trying to come to agreement as to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the story underlying it all will be the battle between the owners over revenue sharing. And until that battle is settled, don't expect the one between the owners and the players to be settled.

It would be a shame to kill the golden goose, and while it is admirable that Mr. McNair is going to bat for Cushing right now, let's not forget his primary reason for buying an NFL team: profit.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.

I did not see this posted anywhere (if it is, please point me in that direction and I will merge).

It would be a shame to kill the golden goose, and while it is admirable that Mr. McNair is going to bat for Cushing right now, let's not forget his primary reason for buying an NFL team: profit.

I dont know where I stand on this exactly, but I think 100% revenue sharing sounds like a ridiculous idea.

Edit: Maybe I should explain my position more.

The problem that I see with 100% revenue sharing is that seems to punish the teams in the best markets. Especially teams like Houston, which are still building an identity and fanbase. That extra money may be used to hire better coaches, give better contracts, improve our stadium, etc. All things necessary to building a reputation.

If we're going to have 100% revenue sharing, will it follow that the large market owners get to dictate how the smaller market teams run? If McNair doesnt like the way a team like Jacksonville or Buffalo is operating, those losses will end up costing him and everyone else profit.

Im not trying to say that revenue sharing in general is a bad idea, just that there seems like a middle ground somewhere in there that will allow big markets like Houston and Dallas to reap the benefits of their investments and marketing while also allowing the smaller markets to keep up.

I understand why revenue sharing is necessary to keeping small markets in business. Especially when you compare other teams to Dalls.

But to compare a team like the Packers (small market?) to a team like the Texans gets confusing. They have a huge advantage in terms of history, fanbase, etc. If we want to compete in the NFL, we're going to need some of the advantages that come from being in a successful market like Houston. It could help us build to the point that we can compete on other levels, besides just raw profit margins.

I agree with you (DB). This is one of those areas where I just don't understand why McNair can't see that he bought into a league that was incredibly strong due to the very same revenue system that he now wants to start taking apart. The minute they kill their system of revenue sharing they start down the path of MLB (albeit with what has almost become a token salary cap system in place).

I dont know where I stand on this exactly, but I think 100% revenue sharing sounds like a ridiculous idea.

I think this is a situation where 100% revenue sharing is imperative and critical to the quality of the product. Without at least "significant" revenue sharing it becomes a choice between having a strong league of teams or a league with a few strong teams.

I'm going to be honest here and admit that I don't fully understand the pros and cons of revenue sharing, but I get what the point is and why it is done. Taking what I've read into consideration......I don't think I agree with it. I think that teams should be able to stand on their own. You are supported by your fan base and that support will grow depending on how well you play in the season. Sure small market teams will struggle, but maybe that's the problem with putting a team in a small market area when there are limited numbers of teams. Having said that, I may feel differently if we weren't in the 4th largest city in the nation with a fairly large market. But, from where I stand, I think teams should be able to spend what they want to on their players with the revenue that they make. If you can't support your teams, then your teams leave.

I agree with Herv completely. The NFL's success is directly tied to the ideas of revenue sharing as pioneered by Pete Rozelle and Lamar Hunt. There is absolutely no argument to be made otherwise about the history of it. The NFL and NFL Films celebrate this fact all the time.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.

Totally agree that revenue sharing is a must. All national tv contracts and merchandise sell should be shared equally by all teams at the least. If not, the teams like Jacksonville, Buffalo and others are going to be sold and/or moved every few years.

__________________
Re: Who starts at QB?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norg

Brain Cushing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seegara

If I know the FO, they're not going to get a top QB. Mallett will turn out to be a 1-game flash, but it will be discovered too late.

I agree with television revenues being disbursed equally but not individual team generated revenue. Why should bad teams and their fans be rewarded for bad behavior (i.e. poor attendance) *cough* Jaclsonville *cough*??

I agree with television revenues being disbursed equally but not individual team generated revenue. Why should bad teams and their fans be rewarded for bad behavior (i.e. poor attendance) *cough* Jaclsonville *cough*??

So what is the current revenue sharing in the NFL? Is it a percentage of revenue by team? What type(s) of revenue is shared?

How does revenue sharing effect the NFL's competitiveness versus having a salary cap? How would it effect the NFL if they had both?

- It's my understanding that the salary cap is meant to even the playing field so that large market teams can't outspend small market teams regardless. In that case, I don't see how revenue sharing would change the competitiveness of the league unless small market teams don't generate enough money to hire a payroll that meets the salary cap each year.

__________________
Life is too important to be taken seriously. -Oscar Wilde

I dont know where I stand on this exactly, but I think 100% revenue sharing sounds like a ridiculous idea.

Edit: Maybe I should explain my position more.

The problem that I see with 100% revenue sharing is that seems to punish the teams in the best markets. Especially teams like Houston, which are still building an identity and fanbase. That extra money may be used to hire better coaches, give better contracts, improve our stadium, etc. All things necessary to building a reputation.

If we're going to have 100% revenue sharing, will it follow that the large market owners get to dictate how the smaller market teams run? If McNair doesnt like the way a team like Jacksonville or Buffalo is operating, those losses will end up costing him and everyone else profit.

Im not trying to say that revenue sharing in general is a bad idea, just that there seems like a middle ground somewhere in there that will allow big markets like Houston and Dallas to reap the benefits of their investments and marketing while also allowing the smaller markets to keep up.

I understand why revenue sharing is necessary to keeping small markets in business. Especially when you compare other teams to Dalls.

But to compare a team like the Packers (small market?) to a team like the Texans gets confusing. They have a huge advantage in terms of history, fanbase, etc. If we want to compete in the NFL, we're going to need some of the advantages that come from being in a successful market like Houston. It could help us build to the point that we can compete on other levels, besides just raw profit margins.

So you think that those who do things the right way would feel punished or slighted by having to pay for those who just take and take and take?

__________________Hey O'Brien: "How do you tell a guy who is used to catching 80 balls a year that he was going to catch 40?"... You jackass.

About 2/3 of the NFL's money comes from the TV deal. The players get about 2/3 of team revenue. So, more or less, the TV contract goes to pay the players. These contracts are typically for about 5 years, and every time they are renegotiated the price goes up. So do player's salaries.

The money from the TV contract is share and share alike - the Redskins, Cowboys, Bills, and Packers get identical checks. This money is key to the success of the smaller franchises. Without the TV contract money, there is simply no way on earth that Green Bay could ever field a competitive team.

There are a lot of other sources for NFL money. NFL licensed jerseys, for example that Randy Moss jersey you put on your kid last Halloween when you dressed him up as a demon, result in license fees going to the NFL. This money is also equally shared.

When the teams play, there is a "gate," the money people pay for seats. This is in the neighborhood of about $2.5M per game. This money is split 60-40, with the visiting team getting 40% of the gate. Because of this teams like Jacksonville and Arizona just love it when the Packers or Cowboys come to play. These are the two or three games each year these teams can count on selling out, and the money they get is very welcome. Sometimes you will find that to buy a ticket to see the Packers on the road you have to buy a package of two or three tickets. This is nothing more or less than a device to get money from Packers fans into the pockets of the other teams owners.

Unshared money

The newer stadiums have large box seats which are leased to corporations. This money is not currently shared, which gives individual teams a big incentive to get a new stadium with fewer normal seats and more corporate seats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

How does revenue sharing effect the NFL's competitiveness versus having a salary cap? How would it effect the NFL if they had both?

The NFL has had both in place for years, and IMO, it has served the league very well. I think ALL fans should feel that their team has a fighting chance before every new season, which is the exact opposite that MLB fans feel every year.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.

I could be wrong and I hope that I am but maybe the NFL owners already know that there will be no 2011 season due to the country marching to a big war. It seems like the country is marching to war again...probably before the end of this year. Hopefully I'm wrong.

But here's the part that is so hard for the players, and quite frankly most fair-minded fans, to swallow: If the owners' claims are true and they need the givebacks to stay healthy, why not give the players as much information as you have to get that done? Based on all the information available to us, all 32 owners appear to be getting very rich off the NFL, and "Joe Fan" continues to pay more and more to line their pockets.

A very long but good read imo. The problem I have with small markets is some do nothing to help themselves. For years the Buffalo owner refused to sell name rights for his stadium. Hopefully both owners and players realize they might be allowing something good to get away.

__________________
I want to be able to recognize the difference between a "want" and a "need" and then I want to be satisfied with getting a need

So basically the board is split along the lines of for and against free enterprise... who let you guys out of the NSZ?

The NFL is not "free enterprise". As soon as owners and the league start paying to build their own stadiums and quit public financing, then we can talk free enterprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy

But here's the part that is so hard for the players, and quite frankly most fair-minded fans, to swallow: If the owners' claims are true and they need the givebacks to stay healthy, why not give the players as much information as you have to get that done? Based on all the information available to us, all 32 owners appear to be getting very rich off the NFL, and "Joe Fan" continues to pay more and more to line their pockets.

A very long but good read imo. The problem I have with small markets is some do nothing to help themselves. For years the Buffalo owner refused to sell name rights for his stadium. Hopefully both owners and players realize they might be allowing something good to get away.

Good article, man. Thanks for posting it. And very good point about the plight of some small market teams. It is all to be considered when analyzing the big picture.

Unfortunately, Joe Fan is the one that will end up losing in the end, with the potential of a missed season and rising prices on everything.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.